China Plots Cyberspace War Strategy 185
gaijin|dog writes "According to this article in the Washington Times, China has said that Internet warfare should be equated to combat operations for air, land and sea forces. Communications, transportation, finance, electrical power networks and other critical services in the US are listed as likely targets. Kinda scary considering the resources China could use against us." My personal opinion: this article is a dizzy mix of fact and scare-mongering. But you ought to read it for yourself and make up your own mind how valid it is.
Who's to blame? (Score:2)
What's really neat is that it shows the importance of the Internet- not that anyone who reads Slashdot questions the role of the Internet in business, government, and personal use- but it's neat to see that controlling the Internet and an enemies computer networks as viewed as important as controlling an enemies land, sea, and airspace.
Hype (Score:1)
It's reminiscent of Microsoft's vaporware tactics in its various "wars" with real or potential competitors (in some respects--obviously, it's not a perfect analogy).
We need rules. (Score:3)
The problem is that some people might not notice that, yes, there is a problem with it. It's not "clean" warfare -- what if your mission critical computer that is 'net connected goes down? This same system could be responsible for life support for hospital patients, or perhaps tracking the course of some satalites (the Shuttle doesn't stand up to well to colissions).
Can we really take the risk of letting people distrupt, either directly or indirectly, the infrastructure that a lot of people rely on? Something that could lead to deaths?
---
Like that would work. (Score:1)
Is this why linux is the OS of the PRC?
Does the US have anything like this? (Score:1)
Government scare tactics (Score:1)
JMC
Interesting in light of the recent discussion... (Score:1)
China->Linux->Communism->WAR (Score:1)
What would Al Gore(cyber-candidate) say ?
Intial Impressions (Score:1)
I'm curious (Score:2)
Dragon Is Not Hiding its Claws (Score:5)
The real point of this article is that China is trying to make itself powerful in any way it can. America is currently very vulnerable to electronic attack. So vulnerable that if an attack were mounted, we might not know how to react.
When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we knew immediately what to do. It meant war. If China were to take down one of the Pentagon's networks for a few days, what would we do about it? The confusion it would generate is far more scary than even a clearly defined first strike. When people are confused, they make mistakes. Between China and the US, the mistakes could get big.
But enough talk about apocalypse... For now it is mostly just blustering. I think the best thing that could come out of this is that the US and other contries might develop electronic warfare departments of their own. If it hasn't happened already, I hope the US has plans in place detailing what we will do if we are attacked over the Net. I know we already have some sort of an electronic warfare division, but I'm sure the bulk of it is classified.
Do you think we'll see an official US govt. response to this newly publicised threat?
Wait a minute... (Score:1)
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
The Internet is not central to warfare (Score:4)
"Modern high-tech warfare cannot win without the Net"
The above is a quote from the article and is, IMO, complete rubbish. I am not saying that internet warfare would not be an effective means of disrupting the functioning of a large, technlogised country. But to state that a war could not be won without using the Net is garbage.
One squadron of B2 stealth bombers could completely obliterate most small countries before their populace new they were there. How the hell does this kind of aggresive, decisive action involve the internet?
Another example is the air war fought against Iraq in 1990. That operation could be repeated again, with even greater success, tomorrow. In exactly the same fashion. Hell, the bombing raids could probably use the same flight patterns. Denial of service would be far easier to achieve using a physical attack. Why not just airburst a small nuke over Wall Street? EMP is far more effective, more direct, then DoS attacks over the internet.
By all means, hack government and community systems to cause confusion, unrest and inconvenience. But the effective use of electronic warfare has virtually nothing to do with the Internet.
Cya,
Gomez
Interesting. (Score:2)
1a: Go out there on that battlefield, and kill as many people as you can. (NOTE: Killing is illegal, but in times of war, Go for it.)
1b: Go out there on that network, and kill as many workstations as you can. (NOTE: System Cracking is illegal, but *apparently* in times of war, encouraged.)
Pretty interesting when considered.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
New military branch: The USCF (US Cyber Force). (Score:3)
When cyberwar starts the first to be called up (Score:1)
Be Afraid? (Score:1)
-PovRayMan
Re:We need rules. (Score:1)
I think cyberwarfare is no different than bombing airfields or supply routes; it's an indirect attack based on the enemy's reliance on an unprotected channel.
Attacks on civilian space are horrible, but they're also a part of war. In real life, civilian targets are bombed all the time, without any sort of regulation by the UN or anyone else. If that can persist, how could anyone regulate cyber-attacks?
Re:Interesting. (Score:1)
According to the book, China could launch a devastating computer-run sabotage operation by attacking U.S. oil refineries, many of which are grouped closely together in areas of Texas, New Jersey and California
when you do something like this, you aren't "killing workstations", you're killing people (possibly)
The Washington Times isn't reliable. (Score:4)
If something is reported in the Washington Times and not picked up by the Post or the New York Times, you can bet that it's the Moonies getting it wrong yet again.
Re:China->Linux->Communism->WAR (Score:1)
matisse:~$ cat
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:1)
Come on. (Score:2)
I mean who can forget the time when they ran the story about the red army sargeant deep undercover as a slightly plump Ms. Lewinsky? What about their coverage of the Tonya Harding affair? Can you say biased?
I think its time we realized that "KGB Today" is probably the only unbiased, reliable news source left in the world.
Hotnutz.com [hotnutz.com]
Re:Like that would work. (Score:1)
You could strangle then with your mouse cord.
You could throw one of the Windows Resource Kits at them and cave in their chest cavity.
There's Something Fishy Here.... (Score:5)
One of the signs that a story has been "placed" by a PR firm is when the story gives extensive attention to a single source--who coincidentally has just published a book on the subject. That seems to be the case here--William Triplett is identified as the author of a new book, Red Dragon Rising [amazon.com].
One of the threats that Triplett explicitly raises is that the Chinese might be able to use Internet warfare to raise havoc in petroleum refineries--causing fires, spills, etc. He emphasizes that oil refineries are generally located close together, as though this represents some kind of danger.
That reminded me of something--I've already read this book, only it was a novel. Back in 1986 Tom Clancy and Larry Bond wrote a thriller entitled Red Storm Rising (Clancy, Red Storm Rising, New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1986 [amazon.com]). The story begins with an attack by Muslim terrorists on a massive petroleum refinery in central Russia. One of the terrorists uses computer commands to wreak havoc--causing spills, igniting fires, and causing mass destruction. The fires destroy a major portion of the Soviet Union's petroleum industry, because all the refineries are located so close together.
Whether, and how, the U.S. might respond to a concerted Internet attack is an interesting question. But I wonder if this guy represents a credible source....
Re:Rules? Geneva convention rarely observed as it (Score:1)
i was in model un this weekend and I(IRAN) was getting bashed by Russia and the U.S. over our possession of chemical weapons. So we handed out maps of all 30 of Russia's known chemical weapons facilities, they weren't very happy. We also cited several times when they used them irresponsibly.
matisse:~$ cat
"Of course, WE would never do such a thing" (Score:2)
I am sure that the US has its own info-war corps at training right now and they will use the very same methods for the sake of western civilization.
Funny that other nations' troops are always the evil guys, despite using the same actions, tactics and weapons during war.
------------------
Windows NT? (Score:1)
Things that make you go HMmm (Score:1)
When's the IPO? (Score:1)
Suuuuure... whatever. (Score:2)
When black 'hits' they (usually) only mark their 'kill' with a label.
Now, given that at least a good quarter-to-a-third of the (cr|h)ackers (and usually the better ones, at that) are politically motivated, I think it's a pretty good bet that they'd lash out hard against any nation that began waging cyberwarfare against civilians. (The response would be more mixed for military-target-only, of course, and both sides might gain unofficial 'cyberwarriors' in many situations.)
Final notes -
Any refinery, factory, etc, that has their real
world device controls accessible to the internet should be immediately be dissolved on the basis of congenital idiocy and criminal negligence leading to the endangerment of lots of lives.
'Cyberwar' is a really stupid term. Some one come up with a better one, -please-. 'Information war' sounds more like propaganda-warfare. 'Internet war' probably won't catch on. Don't even -think- 'e-war' or 'iWar'
--Parity
if its mission critical, don't put it on the net (Score:2)
Putting such a system on the Internet is simply irresponsible, especially where lives are at stake. The military knows this pretty well. The civilian sector... well, I would hope they understand this too. But it wouldn't surprise me to see some problem areas.
Best regards,
SEAL
... (Score:5)
--
Pull the plug? (Score:1)
Just doesn't have the same ring as 100's of people being killed by a bomb.
and what are we doing about it? (Score:1)
Re:We need rules. (Score:1)
Nobody would seriously suggest that warfare is simply an engagement between professional representative forces but it seems that we often show traces of that idea. The whole population is affected by war and all reasonable advantages should be taken. That said, certain extremes such as nuclear warfare should be considered very skeptically and conventions prohibited their use should be welcomed and respected.
Sounds like.... (Score:1)
Linux == Commie OS.
China == Cyber-threat
ergo...
Linux is a communist weapon to destroy the Free World (tm)
I don't know if I should write a letter to the editor
or do more bongs...
not a properly designed plant (Score:1)
However, newer plants are tending to use Microsoft systems in some of their servers (scary enough), and also normally have internet firewalls. Internal computers (Even in the control room) have both software to control the plant as well as to access the internet.
Firewalls can't stop everything.
Re:Suuuuure... whatever. (Score:1)
Any refinery, factory, etc, that has their real world device controls accessible to the internet should be immediately be dissolved on the basis of congenital idiocy and criminal negligence leading to the endangerment of lots of lives.
What if after breaking into a site on the internet, they compromise the intranet and gain access to these machines? Granted the two networks should never be connected in the first place...
The New Enem(y|a) (Score:1)
Of course, this could just be random hype, and nothing will come of it. If any 3leet kids out there start getting calls from the men in the white hats, I hear they don't pay too well.
"Where do you get off thinking any OS is superior to DOS?"
Random idea for war (Score:1)
Re:The Internet is not central to warfare (Score:1)
While I cannot but agree with the position that "But to state that a war could not be won without using the Net is garbage." is accurate, take the following into account:
Most small countries have supporters in other countries. Most small countries have parts of "their" population in other countries. The US bombs <small country>, and the next day four hospitals and the pentagon loose power. 2 days later, the planes that flew the mission get another set of orders. This set flies them at night by coordinates, and instead of dropping bombs on <small country>, it's on a Russia chemical factory--do you think that Russia will beleive it was hackers?
You use the Internet, and other forms of electronic warfare before the fighting breaks out to totally screw up the othersides Command and Control, muck up their logistics, and generally sow as much confusion as possible.
Imagine those bombers that flew over Iraq. Now imagine how completely screwed up their orders could have been if Sadam could have hacked the U.Ss C&C infrastrure *or* if the pilots weren't sure their orders were "correct". In the former, you could have bombers dropping bombs on their own side. In the latter, you've got ever set of orders being questioned as to it's authenticity, and slowing everthing down.
Of course, strong, well applied Crypto, and the will and education to use it would make this all moot.
They just don't get it. (Score:1)
But, in reading the paraphrasis of the Chinese article, particularly the reference to "gaining control" of "Internet command", I get the feeling that they don't quite understand the decentralized nature of the Internet.
What can they do? Get root on the root nameservers?
Rand [rand.org] has some interesting studies in this field.
k.
Re:Hype (Score:1)
I look forward to seeing this used as a justification for an escalation of military spending, further rollback of individual rights in the US, and any use of force that those in power deem necessary (whether for real or purely propagandistic reasons).
Oh my God! People might die?! (Score:1)
oh come on now... (Score:1)
Do you really think that you can just "hack" the U.S. Command and Control structure? First of all, the U.S. military, amongst others, focuses on compartmentalizing. Certainly it is a hierarchy, but each subunit knows its job and what to do if isolated.
But more importantly, they don't rely on the Internet for their wartime critical communications. Would you? I mean, sure, you can wreak some havoc on a carrier battle group with an EMP, but that crosses into the realm of a physical attack. Same thing with destroying a key satellite. Carrying out a 100% information based attack usually requires infiltration or compromised security in some form. Simply having access to the Internet won't cut it.
Best regards,
SEAL
the usual suspects (Score:5)
1.
To make sure the average citizen is anti-chinese, or to make sure Americans stay patriotic. The whole nuclear secrets scandal was shown to basically be a scam, this is similar territory, at least in it's purpose.
2.
To maintain legitimacy for our military and to increase support for military funding. Notice how the article mentioned something like 39 million dollars being allocated to "protect computers".
This stuff tends to work on a society that is short on facts and long on tabloid bullshit. Lets face it, there are VERY few people who know anything on this topic, including those in high level government positions. Since most people take the media to be the accepted version of truth, they buy it. Of course people don't trust the media nearly as much as they used to, but this is still true for the most part.
Any country that wants to be a player in the next century *should* be developing this type of technology. Who doubts that the US is way ahead of the Chinese in this technology anyway? The US gets all whipped up anytime some country even hints that they might be increasing their military in some fashion, even though we easily have the most powerful arsenal on the planet.
This is just another piece of extreme right-wing xenophobic rhetoric.
Re:New military branch: The USCF (US Cyber Force). (Score:1)
Also, I have a hunch that if there were some kind of stupid 'cyber force' (boy would it not keep _that_ name) it would probably start out as a part of the Air Force. Just my instinct.
Nope (Score:1)
It's already underway to some extent. (Score:1)
Can't really blame them. The Russians were brought down by Pepsi-Cola, cheap blue jeans, fast food, and rock-and-roll. If I was running a totalitarian government, I'd keep such a tight lock on information that I'd make sure that only my brain-washed cronies could speak any language other than ubby-dubby. As is stated in "Children of the Revolution", "McDonald's in Red Square! It's the Communist Apocalypse!"
Information warfare is a part of every government plan, and will be as long as there are people and governments and information. And I'm all for it. My theory is this: It's war. You want to kill me and mine, and I want to stop you. I will do whatever it takes.
~Jason Maggard
"When I remain formless, I force my opponent to defend an attack that he cannot understand."
~Sun Tzu
Neuromancer (Score:3)
---
This article sounds like phear mongering to me. Like this...
The cyber-attacks followed the May 7 bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade and were viewed by some U.S. national security officials as possible government-sponsored information-warfare attacks on the United States.
You're an American student who happens to know how to crack computers. In an unrelated (to you) Chinese conflict, they bomb a U.S. embassy and kill a number of American citizens. What do you do that night?
Information warfare is a natural step into the Information Age. Don't be scared, just be cautious. If you want to look for an Information Age Pearl Harbor or equivalent war-starting (building) atrocity think about a really nasty Melissa/Bubbleboy/BO2K coupled with a million dedicated (and crafty) young men working from the comfort of their homes behind the Great Firewall.
Just some initial thoughts on what will be an interesting topic to follow. I'd REALLY like to hear from some Chinese geeks.
Comment removed (Score:3)
cool (Score:1)
adding 1+1+1 together... (Score:1)
i think some smart ppl in china realiced who volunarable the west is with windoze on almost every desktop.. as a consequence they invested in cyberwarefare while they switch to something more secureable: linux. they hired a few hacker and one of them (as a proof of concept) wrote the macrovirus that sent that emails to china.. makes perfect sense. and if it helps people here to realize how deep they are in the shit by using windoze then it is only good...
dermond.
Re:...Southpark (Score:2)
Oooh, you have such very large penises. We bow before your gargantuan members. Surely men with such large penises have nothing to fear from us. Our penises are soo small.
(that show is too funny, ROTFL every Wed @ 11(M))
Re:LAME (Score:1)
Re:Windows NT? (Score:1)
Re:The Internet is not central to warfare (Score:2)
Great so it looks as if you know something about the Internet. Let's have alook at something else shall we. CHINA is not IRAQ or a "small" country.
Go to a site called Janes Military Weekly and just check out the statistics for NUCLEAR as well as CONVENTIONAL standing armies. You will see that CHINA is very close to both the SUPER POWERS in terms of MILITARY strength. Added to the fact that the CHINESE coastline is the most heavily defended anti-aircraft position in the world you may begin having alittle respect for them.
So repeating an airwar above CHINA. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! How many planes would you like to come back. You have got to be out of your tiny little mind. Yeh your planes where ultra sophisticated when it came to butchering Iraqi's and Serb ground forces and AA positions but let see you go up against some real 4th generation anti-aircraft positions and planes for that matter.
How about taking on the Chinese complements of MIGS especially the new MIG-31 which they have been receiving through new SINO-RUSSIAN agreement. That is another case in point touch CHINA and you will have the OLD RED BEAR jumping down your throat. Oh that's right your not scared of them either. You have your allies in NATO to keep them in check.
Why isn't the UNITED STATES stepping in all over CHECHNYA because they know they cannot win a war against another real power. Its ok to pick the smallest dictators around the world (yes I agree they are madmen and I make no apologies for them) but quite another matter to mix it with a former SUPERPOWER or CHINA. (Case in point that CHINA's economy is the fastest growing economy in the world maxing out at 7% per year - they haven't even begun to influence world politics)
I can't wait personally finally another power who will not be afraid to stand-up to the worlds oldest and most corrupt POLICEMAN.
Re:The Internet is not central to warfare (Score:1)
UNaltered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:1)
HOw about do bongs and then write the letter.
Then the editor will think you are a long haired hippie commie!!!
Live long, Bong on
Peace!!!!
Biased and bad reporting (Score:2)
The article itself raves of an oncoming the war with the Evil Communist Chinese Empire creating an anti-capitalism internet branch to their military. Yeah, the same government who has been begging and pleading to be able to do trade with the rest of the world is going to destroy the Internet, right before they invade the US ("Go Wolverines!" [imdb.com]). I especially like the touch of the unnamed "senior Pentagon official" being informed, but not actually having an opinion on the subject. And then there is the expert, William Triplett, and his rabid anti-China book Red Dragon Rising [amazon.com] who spouts off that those crafty Chinese will one day the US oil refineries though the Internet. Yesh. I like it better when Sandra Bullock was fighting evil in The Net. [imdb.com] Rampant xenophobia rears it's ugly head.
-S. Louie
Funding time for the Pentagon? (Score:2)
First of all, our military has a tendency to over-exagerate things. How many "sophisicated, coordinated attacks" turns out to be script kiddies running NMAP randomly on
The general public, as a rule of thumb, is pretty ignorant. And ignorant people are always afraid of the unknown. That's what FUD's made of. Case in point:
Communists + Nuclear "Secrets"
Communists + Cyber attacks.
Issues like these are meant to generate anti-Chinese sentiments. "Chinese students at American universities might be trained for cyber attacks?" Unless the author can back that up, that's slander to a lot of students.
Secondly, who is to say that the US doesn't have infowar capabilities? At DefCon in Las Vegas, there was a talk given about EMP bombs - developed by the Army. Military commanders know how the game is played. You develop a weapon, someone else develop a similar weapon as a counter. And, in most cases, the spread of these weapons, in the hands of rational heads of States, allows us to have checks and balances in place. Chinese government officials aren't dumb, they know that if they launched an unprovoked attack they can be sure to face retalliations.
Just my 2 cents.
-=- SiKnight
This is the first post by someone with brains. (Score:1)
Re:Interesting in light of the recent discussion.. (Score:1)
willis.
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:2)
No, we can blame Bill Clinton. I remember his "no most favored nation status for China" speech during his first campaign. That's why I voted for him the first time around. Since then, however, the fat liar has been bending over and greasing up for the Chinese at every opportunity. That's why I didn't vote for him the second time. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
And the most recent deal? Letting China into the WTO (without congressional approval) just so we can sell car insurance to them? What's up with that? You can't sell insurance to people without cars. That just proves how much Billy Boy has been brown nosing to Beijing. I wonder how much they had to pay for him.
Well, I think this article demonstrates how China is not our friend. I just wish the american people realized that every time Bill gives in to China, he's bending us over too.
Heh (Score:1)
Of course, that's just the condescending slap-on-the-wrist version. More likely it'd start raining bombs over the attacking country. There is not one country on Earth that would sit back and let another country directly damage its infrastructure; that's almost as infuriating as a physical invasion, doing damage on the country's own home soil. It's as much of a commitment to hostilities as a real invasion, too; no political propaganda would save the aggresor from being universally condemned by the rest of the world.
So this is about as dangerous as nuclear weapons. Incredibly dangerous, and yet everyone will be afraid to fire first, because the response volley will be fatal.
-evilWurst
Hype , hype, hype (Score:1)
Harming systems connected to the Internet is so easy that we cannot rely upon Internet-reliant systems to manage our most critical functions - national power grid, air traffic control, the fed, etc. (you all saw Sneakers?)
Commercial business can be trashed pretty quickly over the Net, but government is something else.
you forget a few things (formatted) (Score:1)
Your arguments are scattershot and separate. They don't apply to the same thing.
a) Chechnya. China's major advantage over the U.S. in Chechnya (should either of them become involved) is the fact that the U.S. isn't connected via land. This makes it extremely difficult to deploy ground troops to the area. Remember the mobilization to liberate Kuwait? Half a million men or so... and it took awhile. China could make that action look tiny with their proximity to Chechnya. U.S. Air operations would also be restricted due to the lack of nearby airbases.
b) China's shoreline. Once again, launching an attack on ANY overseas target is much more difficult than defending your homeland. Launching an invasion (read: amphibious assault) is even more difficult. The U.S. is arguably the only nation in the world equipped and trained for this. Yet they won't even consider it without prior established air-superiority.
c) You left out China's navy, which is seriously lacking. If I was assigned to attack China, you can bet I'd take advantage of this. Flatten that air defense with sub-launched cruise missiles, and take out strategic ports and bases. I'm not saying I'd succeed, but that would be a weak point to start with. China operates a few attack subs but they would be insignificant. The U.S. undeniably operates the strongest Navy in the world at the present time.
China WOULD LIKE to increase its influence in the world (what nation wouldn't?). But at this point, they really do NOT stack up against Russia and the U.S. with regard to long-distance military operations.
With a next-door neighbor, though, they could just send a massive wave of troops in for target practice. That's China's strength.
Finally, to call the U.S. corrupt is really a relative thing. In comparison to other large nations, I'd say the U.S. is about par for the course. Every such nation has its own agenda, with points both good and bad.
How the Chinese press works (ontopic) (Score:3)
The main paper is "The People's Daily" (renmin ribao). It may be full of bs sometimes, but it is politically correct news. Usually contains some rant about hegemony or something somewhere.
The next level down are city level papers like "Beijing Daily" and "Chongqing Daily". These are less under central control, and more likely to report things a little more accurately or with less propoganda and moralizing.
The third level are special interest newspapers like "Shipping News" or "The People's Liberation Army Daily" or perhaps old part relics like "Information Reference" (xiaoxi cankao, this is more reliable, but more propaganda-ish) . These are the least reliable (in my opinion). Since they have less prestige and relics of the past, they put out more radical stuff to sell papers...
Also, sometimes the papers a little more distant from the People's Daily are used as test beds for new ideas or to create hype... The "Ming Pao" paper in Hong Kong did this during the summer, with lots of talk about invading Taiwan.
I'm assuming this article is not to make foreigners scared (this newspaper is directed to internal readers) and instead just to move papers. The military is big stuff in China -- much more obvious than in the US. Lots of people read "military news" or like "Military Affairs" (junshi)
the People's Liberation Army Daily site [pladaily.com.cn] (down? probably in gb-chinese as well)
a Beijing Scene article on the recent war fever in China [beijingscene.com] (Beijing Scene is a popular expat weekly in Beijing)
Also, quite seriously, who in their right mind wouldn't be thinking about this type of stuff in this day and age. I mean... like other
Sometimes I get the feeling that people just like to pick on China -- or feel some sort of psychic need to let it fill the spot left by the USSR's collapse. They've drawn a shitty lot (the Chinese), at try thinking from their perspective every once in a while.
maybe I've been here too long.
willis.
Article responses (Score:1)
"William Triplett, co-author of a new book on the PLA, said the Liberation Army Daily article appears to be the first time Beijing officially acknowledged having offensive computer-warfare capabilities."
I don't know about that, but I've seen lots of newspaper articles talking about hacking, and specifically the Chinese hacker response to the NATO bombing of their embassy on 8.5.99. I don't recall the exact text of all of those articles, but it always seemed like they thought it was pretty important, even if they never said anything about capabilities.
"All of this offensive-warfare talk, when China is not threatened by anyone, shows that the dragon is at the point where it doesn't have to hide its claws," Mr. Triplett said.
Their is a general Chinese tendancy to be the most hawkish when things at the center are the most weak.
(i.e. right after liberation they got into the Korean War, during the cultural revolution they had border skirmishes with Russia, during the transition from Deng Xiaoping to Jiang zemin they raised a huge ruckus about taiwan (ending with the 7th(?) fleet parking itself in the Taiwan Straits in 96), and recently this beef with Taiwan is happening during a weak moment for them internally (falungong, economy problems, corruption)).
It seems that when the "dragon" is the weakest, so to speak, it choses not to "hide its claws" the most. During the Cultural Revolution (a very weak point) people were always talking about the need to "beat down American Imperialism" (dadao meidi) -- they couldn't do anything back then.
so there. Yeah.
willis
Re:Windows NT? (Score:1)
between people who do a good job with NetWare and people who work with TCP/IP. I guess it's like finding someone who knows a lot
about algorithms and does GUI programming.
Nice comparison, I like it!
Now, to thefiures you mentioned: I am not sure what exactly do you meant by NetWare 3.x installations. Do you mean numer of servers, or number of licenses? Anyhow, as far as I know, thesituation just before NetWare 5.0 started to ship was 80 million user licenses, of which approximately 50% NetWare 3.1x and 50% netWare 4.x. As of today they have upgraded 5% of their total user base to netWare 5.0. Even if, let's suppose, they upgraded only the NetWare 4.x users, this would mean there is (at least) 1 NetWare 5.0 license every 10 NetWare 3.1x license. You would still be able to argue that, heck, 10 to 1 is a big difference, and I accept the point. I would just have hoped that the Army would keep in touch with the new trends a bit quicker
But talking about the army and NetWare, have a look at this link. [yahoo.com] Looks like the army is back to Novell. I feel this as good news, after the debuckle of the USS Yorktown.
Go away, TBN. (Score:1)
Fact is, China has never instigated hostilities with anyone in the entire 6000 years of its history that was not Chinese, or thought of as Chinese by China (here I'm thinking of Vietnam and Tibet).
All of these attempts to make China out to be a threat to Our Way Of Life are not only paranoid, they are completely asinine. China only cares about China. It concerns itself with the rest of the world only when the rest of the world gets in its hair.
Re:Nope (Score:1)
I'd say that compared to us, the PRC has a squeaky clean record. Go peddle your sinophobia elsewhere.
Re:Suuuuure... whatever. (Score:1)
Any refinery, factory, etc, that has their real world device controls accessible to the internet should be immediately be dissolved on the basis of congenital idiocy and criminal negligence leading to the endangerment of lots of lives.
What if after breaking into a site on the internet, they compromise the intranet and gain access to these machines? Granted the two networks should never be connected in the first place...
Read his answer again.
If the real-world controls are accessible via the internet (regardless of whether or not they have to "compromise the intranet" first) then someone, somewhere, screwed up horribly and need to be flogged.
Jay (=
Chinese Lang software on linux ( OT ) (Score:1)
Any good websites about linux/Chinese software ?
Cheers,
China is underestimated, but... (Score:3)
Anyways, despite China's immense military power and their propensity to trample on their citizen's rights, I don't believe they have any interest in going to war with us. Worst Case: Mutually Assured Destriction, the end. Best Case: Conventional arms war (which strikes me as implausible)--the US has an edge in many ways. Namely, our industrial capacity is significantly larger (e.g.: the ability to turn out more tanks, planes, trucks, bombs, artillery, faster). It would be an ugly war no matter what; not in anyone's best interest. China is probably going to be the world's next great super power (besides the US) if things keep on going the way the way they have been. Why would their stable leadership want to do anything so brash?
Hitting Where It Hurts When It Isn't Expected (Score:1)
By focusing on the electronic warfare concept frequently brought up these days, China shows one of the USA's main weaknesses: we are slow. There recently was an article in Newsweek about military reaction time and the difficulties of deploying the army. It also showed figures that the total weight of an army division has rose over the last ten year to a frightening amount (Some of the article can be found here [newsweek.com], although the graphic in which the figures were is not on this link). This has always been a difficulty for armies and such problems have allowed terrorism and guerilla tactics to become quite successful against a conventional army. This worked for the Colonists in the Revolutionary War, it worked for the Boers in the Anglo-Boer War, it worked countleass times. Again and again, the supposed underdog was successful because it forced the enemy to keep on its toes until they slipped and fell over. This concept of electronic warfare (the media's fabled "electronic battlefield") draws from the same idea. By simply disrupting the enemy they can cause massive damage and draw attention away from a conventional attack.
Not to mention China gets in the news as a superpower looking for the future, the government can all lobby for an anti-electronic warfare study, and I can sit at home and code code code...
-----------------------------------------------
Everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey...
www.stampede.org
Internet command?! (Score:1)
Ummm, I hate to tell you all this, but unless Microshaft [microsoft.com] completes its plans of world domination, I would really like to see China pull that off. Remember, the Internet (then the ARPANET) was designed to operate during a war without failing. So far, it's still essentially as attack-resistant, except that now it's mainly a civilian playground.
The Internet was designed especially not to have a central command point for just this reason: so that enemies cannot attack or subvert it.
My conclusion is that either the Washington Times is grossly unreliable, or China's idea of information warfare is totally harmless. Worry not, fellow Slashdotters. Stupidity is safety, when it's your enemy that's stupid.
Hogwash. (Score:2)
Yours Truly,
FallLine (with 2 feet firmly planted on the ground)
Re:The Internet is not central to warfare (Score:2)
Great so it looks as if you know something about the Internet. Let's have alook at something else shall we. CHINA is not IRAQ or a "small" country.
True, but I never said it was. To fight China would take a vast investment in hardware and personnel. But the fundamental problem China faces is that it has no technological answer to the stealth aircraft available to the USA; how would their extensive anti-aircraft defenses detect B2s (or F117's, or whatever the YF22 becomes) flying at altitude?How about taking on the Chinese complements of MIGS especially the new MIG-31 which they have been receiving through new SINO-RUSSIAN agreement.
The Russians supplied Iraq with Fulcrums, but after the UN declared war, Russia stopped supporting them. Unsurprisingly, they were never a threat to UN forces despite the fact that they are actually quite impressive aircraft.You are also making the assumption that Russia would continue to support China despite a war beetween China and America / NATO. But what would be the point of that? Many ex-USSR states (and parts of Russia itself) want to join NATO. When faced with a war against China, NATO would probably be most happy to have alies in the area, leading to many ex-Warsaw pact countries joining them.
Why isn't the UNITED STATES stepping in all over CHECHNYA because they know they cannot win a war against another real power.
I must disagree with you there. America has technological, numerical and financial superiority over Russia. They only lack numerical superiority against China. The only way America could loose a war with either country would be by mismanagement.
I can't wait personally finally another power who will not be afraid to stand-up to the worlds oldest and most corrupt POLICEMAN.
Do you mean America or the Roman Catholic Church? ;-)
More Anti-Americanism on /. (Score:1)
There are ALOT of fellow geeks here in the US who are anti violence and anti war, when being ANTI war matters. Remember, some wars are just, like the one against the Nazi pigs, or against Sadam (yeah, I know we helped create him, but if we didn't someone else would have and we'd still have had to fight him anyway...)
WHY can't we all just get along???
C'mon guys, it's getting old and boring already...
As far as info warfare goes, any of you who think that Uncle Sam doesn't have a few battalions of armored geeks somewhere in a hollowed out mountain planning the same thing the Chinese are planning, is nuts. I don't how true it is, but I read somewhere that the U.S. Space Command uses some kind of "hardened" and customized UNIX on systems that are physically hardened against particle/energy burst attacks. Also, the US Govt. routinely uses Cyber Warfare techniques against Colombian druglords, taking money out of their bank accounts. I saw this special on The Learning Channel or Discovery about it. They have this dude in a house with aluminum foil all around his windows of his computer room to protect against something (either energy attacks or to keep his stuff from being electronically eavesdropped- I'm sure some of YOU know..) - and he is one of the guys attacking the druglord accounts. Pretty cool stuff, IMO.
==============================
Windows NT has crashed,
I am the Blue Screen of Death,
Re:Nope (Score:1)
Re:Nope (Score:1)
America would never EVER try an attack against China. Get it through your thick skull that America doesn't want war. We only want to keep the oil flowing, stop genocide in Europe, and keep the Commie bastards from spreading. Communism is the most evil form of totalitarianism. If you like it so much why don't you go live there (if you don't already).
Good thing the Free World doesn't rely on Europe or Canada. While I generally like Europeans and Canadians, you guys would roll over for any dictator or Totalitarian lot.
Take your Americaphobia elsewhere, pal.
==============================
Windows NT has crashed,
I am the Blue Screen of Death,
We need brains. (Score:1)
Better start at the beginning, then. What is Cyberterrorism? Has it even been properly defined? Signal 11 humorly points out that even a "Bad hair day" could be guised as Cyberterrorism.
I have a another question... How many institutions have separate internal and external (internet accessable) networks? I don't know of many bank ATMs that run Netscape. You want security? Don't plug it in. You want Internet? Buy yourself a WebTV. Just because we CAN make ourselves "dependant" on the Internet, it does not mean we should... Slashdot excepting, of course.
Re:New military branch: The USCF (US Cyber Force). (Score:1)
And like magic a search of PM's site brings up the article [popularmechanics.com]
Taiwan has been preparing (Score:1)
Re: Oversized condoms (Score:1)
Do you have any links on the internet to back this up? (hey, if two people say it on the internet, it must be true!) I searched quite a bit, couldn't find anything.
Re:Dragon Is Not Hiding its Claws (Score:1)
Re:Who's to blame? (Score:1)
Ummm, not quite... read the Cox Report [house.gov]... whatever information the Chinese obtained on the W-88 warhead design hasn't been implemented in the current-generation DF-5 ICBM's (which were deployed *1981*), but would instead be expected to have influenced the design of their next-gen DF-31 ICBM's, which won't even make it into the PLA's 2nd Artillery Corps' arsenal for at least 3 years. In other words, check your facts before you vent.
HMM...Who invented the internet? (Score:1)
the Pentagon.
Is that your final answer?
Yes.
seti@home == nukechina@home (Score:1)
Think people think! Act before it's too late!
hmm...Who invented the internet? (Score:1)
information dissemination (Score:1)
Never mind 'electronic bombs which saturate the enemy's cyberspace' (I really hope this is a poor translation) -- get the enemy population to *agree* with you.
.c
Internet is now a small piece of the warfare pie. (Score:1)
Re:hmm...Who invented the internet? (Score:1)
Re:Dragon Is Not Hiding its Claws (Score:2)
That's interesting. From my Swedish perspective, the US is the big threat. Not only do the US act as an international police, intervening without UN support when they feel like it - they are also the most powerful nation when it comes to electronics, conventional and nuclear warfare.
Americans really need to get their act together.
PS: This _is_ insightful, not flamebait
Re:More Anti-Americanism on /. (Score:2)
Actually, you didn't. Haig was used as a running boy by the UK to try & negotiate with the Argentinians. The only military action the USA was involved in was in the 1830's, in retaliation for something or other. There's a brief history lesson [yendor.com] here for your education. Or just check a world map, compare the physical size of the UK vs Argentina. Woo, those bully boy Brits throwing their weight around protecting part of the UK - much as you might expect the US government to defend Hawaii, if attacked and occupied by a foreign power.
"Anti-Americanism is so frequent lately on
Might I suggest that you make things better by portraying yourself & fellow countrymen in a better light? Like by posting things that are actually true, instead of this pile of troll [watson-net.com] faeces?
Re:Nope (Score:2)
Yeah, just like the UK did when Hitler invaded Poland. Whilst the US stood by and did nothing until the Nazi threat became too large to ignore. Have you ever read any history?
I don't mean to disrespect your country or nationalism, but please do a little reading before you post inflammatory crap like this.
Re:Hype (Score:2)
They leak enough information to cause a bit of a stir. In the taiwan incident, the center of the missiles were covered, so specific identification of the type of missiles could not be made.
China is flexing their muscles. They wouldn't give up too much information for someone to be able to creat a counter-offensive, but they have objectives. (Like influencing the outcome of the Tiawan election, and becoming recognized as a superpower.)
The world is safe for another five years. If they are up to anything now, it is preparing to recapture some of their lost states, without the intervention of the US.
Re: Oversized condoms (Score:2)
The intention was demoralizing the potential 'human-shield' of stick-wielding peasants, who would need to be slaughtered if we committed to a conventional invasion. Due to their strong allegiance to the emperor, it was feared that peasants would be out on beaches, throwing rocks at the landing U.S. troops.
I think (grind-grind-grind - reaching WAY back) that the story came from a Political Science class, and stemmed from a lecture on the agruments for using nuclear weapons against Japan. Japanese civilian casualties were a major factor, and their patriarchial society was believed to be intimidatable (new word!!) by the 'giant American penis'.